[solenoid0937]

Not offended at all, but just ranting about how someone is a shill instead of responding to the substance of their argument is simply not the kind of discussion we have on HN. Read the guidelines.

> "no, model performance is not degraded because I say so" serve as correcting misinformation?

Because zero evidence has been provided other than feelings. That is not evidence of degradation, and we know they don't serve quants.

[arkadiytehgraet]

You are an Anthropic shill, and this is an explicit marker that needs to be added to all of your comments, so that all information you provide can be adjusted for that bias. But I do understand why you ignore this point since it devalues all your comments (as it should), and instead cling to "ranting how someone is a shill bla-bla-bla".

Those people, unlike you, are actually using AI in development. And it is not a singular person who reports their frustration with the model being degraded after a certain period of time, so the anecdata does gradually become data. Your attempts at gaslighting are weak, you should really ask your bosses for a new guidebook on how to deal with reports of models performing at worse levels than before. Just writing "because I say so" is not cutting it.

> "we know they don't serve quants"

How do you know that unless you are working at Antrhopic? Yet another evidence of you being an Anthropic shill.

[solenoid0937]

You have no substantive arguments other than calling people you disagree with shills.

> so the anecdata does gradually become data.

No, it does not. Countless social phenomena demonstrate how factually incorrect misconceptions spread rapidly. Frequency illusion is real and contagious.

> How do you know that [they are not serving quants]

Lots of ways to tell, if you weren't busy calling people shills.

First, Anthropic and OpenAI have both stated they don't serve quants. Weak protection, but it's there.

Second, no one has shown an A/B or eval proving a regression.

Third, and most importantly, the actual output measurably changes. Quants have a lower latency, higher TPS, and different token distribution. Despite having access to this data, no one has any evidence proving a quant has been served.

> You are an Anthropic shill

I'd explain the reasons I favor Anthropic over the others, but you'd just go back to yelling "shill" instead of engaging in a real conversation. That said, I am a fan of GDM as well, and think Gemini is better than Anthropic for everything other than code.

I've seen nothing resembling sane, reasoned thought from you in this thread. Just anger.

You haven't substantively debated a single point, it's like "shill" is the only word in your vocabulary. Again, this isn't Reddit.

[arkadiytehgraet]

Nothing to do with disagreement, I only call "Anthropic shills" people who are explicitly and shamelessly shilling for Anthropic. You still ignore the point that shilling adds bias to all your comments, so other readers have to actively keep it in mind to adjust for it. Stating that you are an Anthropic shill helps everyone around. And somehow you managed to be peddling LLM-hype shit so hard, that you are the only one called out on that by me.

> No, it does not.

Yes, it does, it is literally the definition of data - collection of points, observations, anything really. Try gaslighting harder, Anthropic shill. As I said, ask for better playbook on how to deal with people actually experiencing degradation before replying again.

> First, Anthropic and OpenAI have both stated they don't serve quants.

What's the point of stating this other than trying to pad your baseless "proof"? LLM-level argument.

> Second, there have not been evals showing a real regression test proving that a quant was served

This is how I know you have no idea what you are talking about and resort to LLMs for all your argumentation. Benchmarks are gamed so hard that even quantized models would achieve on them non-quantized level reliably. Moreover, benchmarks (that matter) are not run continuously all the time.

> Third, and most importantly, the actual output measurably changes. Quants have a lower latency, higher TPS, and different token distribution. Despite having access to this data, no one has any evidence proving a quant has been served.

You really are an LLM. What do you think different token distribution means? It literally means different, arguably worse performance in coding tasks. The evidence is in your face, but you have to keep it straight, since you are an Anthropic shill. You wrote yourself an argument why the models ARE quantized over time and did not even understand it. Makes sense, since you are paid to not understand stuff but peddle LLM-hype for Anthropic instead.

> I'd explain the reasons I favor Anthropic over the others

It is perfectly visible why you favor Anthropic, because you are an Anthropic shill and they pay you your salary, duh.

> real conversation

This is the type of conversation everyone should have whenever they read something written by an Antrhopic shill. You are actively poisoning this forum by astroturfing for Antrhopic, so we should take measures against it.

> You haven't substantively debated a single point

Obviously an Anthtropic shill would ignore everything of substance I wrote and instead focus on being called out. Fortunately, it is not you who I have to convince of anything, since your very well-being relies on getting salary from Anthropic peddling LLM-hype on HN and elsewhere, so you are physically incapable of understanding pretty much anything that contradicts your talking points.

[solenoid0937]

> Yes, it does, it is literally the definition of data

No, feelings are not reliable data when frequency bias and misinformation exist. There is a reason most experiments isolate out bias as much as possible.

> Moreover, benchmarks (that matter) are not run continuously all the time.

So there's no data?

> What do you think different token distribution means?

You clearly did not understand anything I said. Stated simply: If you were being served a quant, you'd be able to tell by looking at the token distribution, latency, and TPS. You don't need to trust the labs' word for it.

> they pay you your salary, duh.

In fact, I get paid by a FAANG, though I do use Anthropic products heavily. Further, I don't really need money, I have more than enough. So much for reading my history.

> You are actively poisoning this forum

Your degenerate discussion - calling people shills instead of engaging with the argument, insulting them when your arguments are disproven, your inability to hold a rational debate that's not angry and emotionally charged - that is what is poisoning this forum.

Frankly, if you react this angrily and emotionally to a simple rational premise (that frequency bias leads to the perception of models being worse than them actually being worse), you're ngmi unless you're already independently wealthy.

I would recommend a therapist, it helped me when I had similar behavioral issues. (Claude is a great therapist, by the way ;)

[arkadiytehgraet]

> Feelings

Nice gaslighting, Anthopic shill. No one said a word about feelings, only you (to derail the conversation). People reported their own experience and frustration with the model being unable to complete tasks they previously could. I said, get a better playbook before coming back. Or is it the best LLMs can do for now? Sad, then.

> No data

There is data, which you try to gaslight into being "feelings", Anthopic shill.

> Stated simply: If you were being served a quant, you'd be able to tell by looking at the token distribution, latency, and TPS.

Did you just repeat what you said before while ignoring the actual meaning of the words and my explanation of what YOU wrote? Is it what LLM told you to do, Anthropic shill? And you claim I have no substance. Maybe spend a week or so getting educated, before blindly copying and pasting LLM output, Anthropic shill?

> I get paid by a FAANG

Yeah, in your dreams maybe, Anthropic shill. I did read your comment history, and this is likely part of the story you try to build around your Anthropic shilling persona. Not a single fact that would prove that and believe me, I tried looking for it. Only endless claims of "I work at a FAANG" (no one who actually works here writes it like this).

> I use Anthropic products heavily

This is obvious, as 90% of your comments are LLM generated, Anthropic shill.

> calling people shills

Clanker, I called only you a shill, not people, tell your LLM to update its context. And I called you shill not because of any arguments, but because of your comment history unapologetically shilling for Anthropic and peddling LLM hype.

> arguments are disproven

You ignored half of my arguments, and for the rest you just repeated what you wrote before, not even understanding what the words you typed meant. Nice gaslighting, Anthropic shill.

> insulting

And you said you were not offended. Once again, Anthropic shill, being called a shill is not an insult. This is your fate, to be called an Anthropic shill, while you are on their payroll, astroturfing online communities with your LLM-bullshit peddling. Or do you expect being a propagandist to be a pleasant experience? People with no morals like you coming into this forum spreading their employer's bullshit deserve all the hate they get and more.

> you're ngmi. Hope you're already independently wealthy.

Your LLM outputs the same thing as in other comment for no good reason. Can't Anthropic afford good models for its shills, or is it the best SOTA can do now?

I would recommend you abandon this account, because it's now burned for all shilling intents and purposes.

[solenoid0937]

Again, you're just interpreting anything that goes against the "AI bad" grain as shilling.

> There is data

Please show it.

> while ignoring the actual meaning of the words

It was an incoherent mess of insults, so I am still not sure what you're trying to say.

> Yeah, in your dreams maybe

So now I'm lying about my employment on an anonymous forum for... what, exactly? If you are actually this conspiratorial IRL, get help.